Game Design Homework 8 (aka: All four parts equal, but one clearly more equal than the others)

(see assignment here:  http://fsugd.blogspot.com/2010/09/homework-8-elemental-tetrad.html)

• Consider any non-computer game that you enjoy playing, and describe the four elements for that game. For example: monopoly, battleship, dungeon and dragons, etc

 For this question, I've decided to analyze the game Nomic.  Since it pretty likely you've never heard of it, I offer a description from it's creator (as quoted on Wikipedia):

Nomic is a game in which changing the rules is a move. In that respect it differs from almost every other game. The primary activity of Nomic is proposing changes in the rules, debating the wisdom of changing them in that way, voting on the changes, deciding what can and cannot be done afterwards, and doing it. Even this core of the game, of course, can be changed.

—Peter Suber

I chose this game because it is clearly a very non-traditional game, and I believe it does a good job of breaking our book's author's ideas of what is needed for a good game.  The game in its core does not truely rely on aesthetics, story, or even technology beyond the written word.  At the same time, any of these elements could be introduced at any point in playing the game, if the players so chose to do so.  The effectively-limitless flexibility of the game means that hypothetically all bets are off.  That being said, my analysis is based only off of the core idea behind the initial rule set.

Story:  Nomic is a fairly abstract game and as such, there's no explicit story.  If you want to force the idea of there being a story, though, there's the general idea/feeling that the players are legislators/law makers in some sense, working together, but each with the goal of winning as an individual.  It's impossible to make any progress without cooperation, but everyone is always suspicious of one-another, because they all know that the others are always, in the end, trying to win at their expense.

Aesthetics:  The original rules of Nomic call only for paper and pencil to write the rules and propositions upon, and a single die for using to gain points at the end of your turn.  The aesthetic as the game has played out in my experience has always been one of the players sitting around a table with pads of paper, and with the table littered with little scraps of this and that, dominated by the central rule sheet in the middle of the table... the resulting feel, if you were to look at it as an outsider is something between a brainstorming session, a game of D&D, and an intensive study time for a life-crushing final exam... and that combination is indeed how the game itself usually ends up feeling.

Technology:  As mentioned above, the technology is pretty minimal; paper, pencils, and a single 6-sided die.  Some more recent adaptations of the core rules have called for the use of computers/laptops/internet connectivity, as the game lends itself very well to shared workspace environments as opposed to writing everything out on paper; but this adaptation changes nothing of the core aspects of the game.  The simplicity and utilitarian aspects of what is needed to play add to the overarching feeling of legalese or doing some kind of work in governing, if you'd like to look at the theme as such.

Mechanics:  There is where the "more equal" of this entry's title comes into play.  Nomic as a game really exists only as a set of mechanics.  All the rest is created by the players themselves in the act of playing.  The core mechanics of the game are that of proposing a new rule, debating the meaning and merits of that rule, voting on if this new rule will come into effect or not, and then (through continued play) determining what the real effect of that change is.  As it sounds, the entire experience feels very much like acting as a law maker or founding father of a country or some such, which as I mentioned is the overarching theme of the experience.

• Describe the mechanics, aesthetics, story elements and technology for your team’s game, in its current state

 Story:  The story behind our game is pretty simple;  the protagonist (for reasons which may or may not be developed later) finds himself trapped within a haunted mansion.  He has few resources available to him, and has to make his way through the mansion in search of the root of the evil haunting to rid the mansion of its curse and to allow him to regain his freedom.

Aesthetics:  Haunted Mansion!  Dark corridors, old, dusty, creepy furniture, spooky music and sound effects, room layouts that make no sense and make you feel confused and lost, creepy lighting, etc.

Technology:  Blender, obviously, and python scripting.  Sam is also using some programs he's familiar with for music composition.  Scripting will allow for a dynamically/randomly generated house layout, ensuring that the player does not feel comfortable in the mansion if they replay the game, and allowing for it to remain challenging.

Mechanics:  Basic first person movement, you find various weapons (probably all non-projectile, but that's not set in stone) and use them to destroy haunted objects.  You travel between rooms and look for new tools (weapons, flash light, possibly health items(?), etc.) and search, too, for the boss and the item needed to defeat him.  Also, as time progresses in the mansion, the level of haunting increases; more items in each room will be dangerous, and returning to rooms you had previously cleared my yield new enemies.

• How is each of the four elements working towards a common theme? What is this theme?

 As mentioned many times by now, the theme is that of fighting through a haunted mansion.  This is the premise of the simple story line, the aesthetics are all designed to present this environment, the mechanics reflect the lack of resources available to the player and a lack of screen clutter (no HUD, etc.) helps give an immersive feel, and the technology behind it, especially in the form of the dynamic level generation, helps make the house feel strange and twisted.